Re: on the closing of ISSUE-155

On 23/11/2016 6:03, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Dimitris,
>
> The difference between what is in the document now with what I 
> proposed is that the words "objects of triples" are missing e.g.,
>
> "sh:equals can be used to verify that the set of value nodes is equal 
> to the
> set of nodes that have the focus node as subject and the value of 
> sh:equals as
> predicate."
>
> where I proposed "the set of nodes that are objects of triples with 
> the focus node as subject and the value of sh:equals as
> predicate."

Correct, this was an editorial error. Fixed:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/d721ec279674bb5eb27020585899ed16629ce32e

Holger


>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas 
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de 
> <mailto:kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Irene,
>
>     We independently came up with the exact same definition for
>     sh:equals and I already adjusted all related definition in 4.6.
>     I also used your suggestion for the improvement of the value node
>     definition.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Dimitris
>
>     On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Irene Polikoff
>     <irene@topquadrant.com <mailto:irene@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>         I propose the following language:
>
>         sh:equals can be used to verify that the set of value nodes is
>         equal to
>         the set of nodes that are objects of triples with the focus
>         node as
>         subject and the value of sh:equals as predicate.
>
>
>         My proposal is based on the definition of a value node as:
>
>         For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value
>         nodes are the
>         objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and
>         the given
>         property as predicate.
>
>
>         I think this definition may need to be made clearer as in:
>
>         For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value
>         nodes are the
>         objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the
>         sh:predicate value as predicate.
>
>
>         If this change reads OK, then a similar language needs to be
>         propagated to
>         all constraints in section 4.6.
>
>         Irene
>
>
>
>         On 9/28/16, 12:10 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
>         <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>         >>From the description of ISSUE-155:
>         >
>         >"[Property pair constraints] talk about an (ordered) pair of
>         properties
>         >but do
>         >not take an (ordered) pair of properties as arguments."
>         >
>         >>From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C
>         Editor's
>         >>Draft 27
>         >September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl>
>         >
>         >"sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets
>         of values of
>         >both
>         >properties at a given focus node must be equal."
>         >
>         >This sentence is even more incorrect now than it was when the
>         issue was
>         >raised.
>         >
>         >
>         >It thus appears that work has not been done that has solved
>         this issue and
>         >that the working group has not adequately investigated the
>         current
>         >situation
>         >before closing ISSUE-155.
>         >
>         >
>         >Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>         >Nuance Communications
>         >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dimitris Kontokostas
>     Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia
>     Association
>     Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
>     http://aligned-project.eu
>     Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>     <http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas>
>     Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>     <http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT>
>
>